Beyond An Open Source Java 550
Karma Sucks writes "LinuxToday is featuring a intriguing article on why Sun should open source Java, as a stronger followup to the recent ESR saga that was reported here. The writer notes: 'Sun needs to do some radical things to improve its chances of survival, and all of them involve Open Source in some form or the other.' One thing the article fails to mention is the threat of Mono, which should be of special interest to Sun, with its vested interest in GNOME."
Dumb question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dumb question (Score:5, Informative)
There are two major Java implementations currently in use -- one by IBM, one by Sun Microsystems. Both of them may come without charge, but are without the freedom that would make them qualify as Free Software.
Therefore, all software written in Java (even software under a Free Software license) running on such a platform will "put the user's freedom at risk" (a quote from FSF/GNU people). It's like running Free Software on Windows.
If you want more detailed 411 about the status of Free Software versions of Java, hit up the following URL:
http://www.gnu.org/directory/devel/prog/java/ [gnu.org]
Re:Dumb question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dumb question (Score:3, Informative)
I'm free to develop whatever Java software I wish. They're improving it like crazy, with the help of tons of pretty smart people (look at Doug Lea's working group's contribution in the latest JDK).
Maybe I'm not getting something here, but it sounds like people just want it to be open source so it can be open
Re:Dumb question (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Tomorrow, Sun might decide to charge for a JVM. Then you will be screwed.
2. They might decide to drop Java, closing all future to all your beautiful programs.
3. What if Sun decide not to support your favorite platform? (Say BeOS, or Linux on PS/2, or HP48SX...)
With open-source, this is less likely to happen - though still possible. We can imagine for Java that we will always have some geeks ready to give a hand even if Sun dropped the whole thing.
Re:Dumb question (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun has copyrights on one of many JVMs, which is closed source, and they control the name "Java" by holding the trademark. This is all, and this is not enough to effectively control the use of the language, even if they wanted to screw customers.
Re:Dumb question (Score:5, Informative)
Three specific quotes:
Q: How many people are currently JCP members?
A: The JCP has over 500 company and individual participants.
Q: What prevents Sun from controlling or dominating the groups that develop and maintain Java specifications?
A: Sun, and the other Executive Committee (EC) members, serve as technology oversight groups for the work of the Expert Groups. The ECs do not micro-manage the day-to-day workings of Expert Groups. Rather, the ECs have the opportunity to review the work of each Expert Group at well-defined points as their specifications proceed through the JCP. The primary function of the ECs is to ensure that specifications do not overlap or conflict with one another and that the specifications meet the needs of the industry segment for which they are being written.
The following EC members elected by the community during the JCP EC Elections in October and November of 2001 took office on November 20, 2001: Apache Software Foundation, Apple, BEA Systems, Borland, Caldera Systems, Cisco Systems, Compaq, Ericsson, Fujitsu Limited, HP, IBM, Insignia Solutions, IONA Technologies, Macromedia, Matsushita Electric Industrial (Panasonic), Motorola, Nokia, Oracle, PalmSource, Inc., Philips, RIM, Siemens AG, Sony, Texas Instruments, and Zucotto Wireless, as well as an individual participant, Doug Lea, representing the research and education communities
who cares of standards? (Score:4, Insightful)
IT has open ECMA specification - and Microsoft made a great P on that.
But the real programs will be made upon MS
Projects like www.DotGNU.org understands it well, so they are running behind (and trying to chase) the very MS libraries, not only the standards.
And Microsoft said that it is their strategy - add new technologies so fast, that competitors have no time to invent their own one.
Re:Dumb question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dumb question (Score:5, Informative)
You can consider it whatever you want. However, there is an official Open Source Definition [opensource.org] that most people mean when using the term. Also see the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) [debian.org]. Sun's Java process, though fairly open for a commercial software product, doesn't comply with the letter or the spirit of either of these.
That would suck for java... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That would suck for java... (Score:5, Interesting)
The big plus side to open sourcing is perhaps the language could be forced to match the nice features of C#, like unsafe constructs and precompilation, both for performance reasons. There's only so much JIT optimization you can do. But precompiling (like GCJ, but intrinsic to the VM) would provide greater opportunities for large scale full source tree optimizations. Compiler writers have been doing this stuff for 50+ years.
Re:That would suck for java... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well.. I think the potential for optimization is greater after linking, at runtime. Just imagine inlining library calls, for instance.
The real advantage, however, is the jvm's access to real run-time performance data. Even if you waste 1% of the app's cpu-time on profiling and dynamic recompilation, you quickly make up fo
Re:That would suck for java... (Score:5, Informative)
I was rather surprised, actually, to see the amount of change from 1.4 to 1.5, at all levels: language, jdk, and jvm. The language itself has a lot of C++/C# features now like covariance and contravariance. 1.5 has more improvement over 1.4 than 1.4 over 1.1, in all aspects, imho.
Re:That would suck for java... (Score:4, Informative)
NIO adds in some really great I/O capabilities. I absolutely love having channels/selectors for network servers. 5 hours of coding on a network server to go from single thread per connection to one thread multiplexing all of my I/O. Using a few worker threads to process incoming data and my stress testing I used before doesn't even come close to pushing the server like it used to. I had to increase the brutality of the testing quite a bit more to find top level performance.
I know I/O is just one aspect of programming, but it is VERY key to overall performance.. and in I/O bound apps NIO is a godsend.
So anyway, there were some really good improvements in 1.4. I think 1.4 was a pretty marked improvement just because of NIO.
Jeremy
Re:That would suck for java... (Score:5, Interesting)
Either would remove some of what makes Java great.
Unsafe constructs would risk punching huge holes through Java's nice safe sandbox.
And precompilation would probably mean that compiled code gets distributed rather than bytecode; 'Write Once, Run Anywhere' doesn't mean much if you can't get hold of anything you can run!
Re:That would suck for java... (Score:5, Interesting)
So basically what I want is that the compiled code should be cached and stored on disk, e.g. like a browser loading cached pages when they are still up to date. Not everything needs to be cached, since profiling (that is behind the current Hotspot technology) could be used to identify those parts of the code that should be aggressively optimized. So those critical areas should automatically be aggressively optimized, which takes time and that should be cached. That's what I would ideally like to see in java.
Also, as for unsafe constructs, I've read about them in C# but haven't developed with it. However, I have used the java native interface. It is really ugly and very cumbersome and intrinsically system-dependent. Sometimes it is necessary to use JNI for performance and for low-level interfaces to the machine. I want something that's low-level but easier to use than JNI for those rare occasions where you've gotta have it.
Re: That would suck for java... (Score:4, Insightful)
Some might think that's a Good Thing as it helps discourage native code unless it's absolutely vital :)
Re:That would suck for java... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That would suck for java... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, no kidding. My refrigerator has JVM 1.1, but my oven runs J2EE 1.4. Just try storing leftovers with that kind of arrangement!
Re:That would suck for java... (Score:5, Insightful)
Like how gcc being open source causes incompatibilities with different gcc ports? Or how the x86 arch being open ruins the ability to write for it?
I really don't see how any of these arguments hold water except if you believe that somehow one company with proprietary control over a standard will do a better job than the open source community at writing to the spec.
The fact is, the Java spec is free as far as I know, and there's nothing really preventing someone from writing their own implementation and porting it to several platforms. Of course, they can't call it Java (Java is trademarked, as use of a programming language), but they can just as easily do everything but call it Java and have or not have compatibility problems. The only thing that Sun open sourcing Java would do is cut out a lot of the work developing the libraries and such which make up the bulk of Java's classes. Sun still owns the trademark and could write a license to prevent anyone using the term Java except Sun (they could even come up with a specific trademarks to clarify degrees of Java-ness which are allowed to be used by people). Open source doesn't mean Free software. And maybe people aren't happy with that. I personally don't care, since Free software wouldn't ever call it Java (maybe they'd call it Java-like), and I firmly believe that the core useful parts of Java will be written by the open source community eventually which will negate a need for Sun to do anything (well, except keep the specs open).
I just find it funny that the defense of keeping Java closed source is it's broken now, so having more people work on it will somehow make it worse. A company is like a bunch of cooks making one cake (or maybe two or three). The community at large is like a bunch of cooks make a bunch of cakes. If enough of the cooks get together, they can make a larger, better cake just like a company. But, there's a lot more cooks out there than there are in one company. And if what the community writes is utter crap, then no one uses it, and we'll stick to the old recipes. It's not like the open source community is a monopoly that can force you to use an inferior product. Only closed source setups work that way, thanks to things like forced bound upgrades from a single company.
as ESR said in CatB (Score:5, Informative)
High cost of J2EE? (Score:5, Informative)
It fails to note that these are the *most expensive* full-suites of these products that have lot of non-J2EE frills (you can get into Weblogic's base J2EE support for $10k). Other commercial J2EE application servers are well under the $10k mark (e.g. $1500 for Orion Server)
This article also fails to note that there are more than a couple very robust OpenSource implementations of J2EE application servers, that are of course free.
It's obvious that if they pointed these facts out that their argument would be weaker...
RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
What the author is talking about is a lack of the right communication from Sun on this matter. If Sun continue to advertise only WebSphere and WebLogic, they set the visible price very high.
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Interesting)
I would say they should fire the marketing department if they are promoting for the competence, IBM and BEA.
Re:High cost of J2EE? (Score:4, Informative)
Other commercial J2EE application servers are well under the $10k mark (e.g. $1500 for Orion Server)
This article also fails to note that there are more than a couple very robust OpenSource implementations of J2EE application servers, that are of course free.
From the article:J2EE is a set of specifications, not any particular implementation. There can be pricey implementations, and there can be affordable ones. The trouble is, the pricey ones have the mindshare (IBM WebSphere, BEA WebLogic). There are far cheaper implementations, but who has heard of them? Orion or Pramati, anyone? And of course, there are Open Source implementations as well (e.g., JBoss), but JBoss (as of February 2004) is not yet a certified J2EE server, and its fledgeling commercial support organisation (the JBoss Group, now called JBoss Inc.) often lacks the clout to open many corporate doors.
I guess they must have quickly jammed those in right after they saw your complaint on Slashdot. Alternatively, you just didn't read the article.
Re:High cost of J2EE? (Score:5, Interesting)
But there are other Open Source "full j2ee stack" application servers out there besides JBoss - Jonas [objectweb.org] for example.
Biggest threat is Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
it doesn't matter if anyone else is going to benefit from/use/modify this WOOSJAVA, most likely it will just be preinstalled in all Windows shipped.
and regardless of what others may like to think, most consumers of MS will think that this WOOSJAVA is now the standard.
so in the end, maybe even Sun needs to write things to accomodate this WOOSJAVA in order to survive, that'll be ironic.
Re:Biggest threat is Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, there is the fact that if they do that they can't call it Java, because Sun owns that name (credit for this point goes to a sibling comment).
Re: Biggest threat is Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't follow. Open source or not, it would be trivial for them to use some feature which is only available on Windows. Sun can have all the source code they want, but if it can't run on other platforms (without effectively porting chunks of Windows too), then they're stuffed.
Open Source is wonderful for apps with a known interface. But Java isn't an app; it's a platform. One of its greatest advantages is its platform neutrality. While having a single company like Sun in charge of it may prevent Joe Bloggs from adding his whizzy new feature, it also prevents M$ from doing the same, which IMO is far more important. I think Sun have steered a fine line between locking Java up so tightly that no-one feels safe using, and opening it up so much that no-one can choose which of the multiple subtly-incompatible versions to use.
Re:Biggest threat is Microsoft (Score:3, Informative)
The only thing that prevents them is anti-trust law, not proprietary licensing.
Also, the GPL would guarantee that Sun can rejoin the WOOSJAVA fork whenever they like, and gain all the benefits. As someone pointed out, Microsoft could use make their open source implementation call some closed source DLL, but at least Sun would also be able to release a version of OSJava that called that closed source DLL just the same. The API would be pretty obvious.
Mono is not a threat (Score:4, Informative)
There's no motivation to "Open Source" Java. It's supported on a myriad of platforms and you can even get access to the source if you want to take on the implementation on a new platform.
Re:Mono is not a threat (Score:3, Interesting)
BS. The article gives several strong motivations, all of which I have personally run into as reasons NOT to use Java at this time. Java will not really take off until it is included with every Linux distro and can be fully embraced by the Open Source community. And it desperately needs more innovation, which OS community support would quickly provide. Sounds like you didn't RTFA. One thing the article didn't mention is that Sun's Java implementation is prob
Re:Mono is not a threat (Score:4, Interesting)
What exactly is your definition of taking off? Java is simply HUGE in the corporate environments. Java is used in just about every industry. While it may not be the largest thing in the Open Source community, it has definitely already "taken off".
Try looking beyond OSS.
Open cool, but still keep distribution rights. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have a cross platform interpreter, you need to make sure there is consistency. For example, Microsoft JVM ruined it for alot of people since developers will forget to debug it on Suns JVM, causing huge incompatibility issues that they blamed on Sun.
Not sure this is what we need (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not sure this is what we need (Score:4, Insightful)
I haven't seen that happen with perl or python. So, I doubt it will happen with java.
Re:Not sure this is what we need (Score:3, Interesting)
Another example are C++ compilers, while there is a De Jure standard - all the companies include their own libraries that you just can't use unless you want to be incompatible. I'm thinking everyone would want a custom VM/Compiler (how many open source C compilers are there?)
I would talk about other non-language related projects but I don't want to get slammed (ok, like "this program won't compile on slackwar
The worst thing that could happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, Sun could still have a vested interest in an open source Java and still derive revenue from custom design services and support while displacing the Beast [microsoft.com]. It isn't even like the implementation is a trade secret. Heck, the Beast has developed Java bytecode interpreters in the past. But the Beast would love to displace Java with
Hence, Sun has a great opportunity here. Will they see it?
Re:The worst thing that could happen... (Score:4, Informative)
Not so. Check out Shared Source CLI [microsoft.com], as known as Rotor. Basically a free, open-source version of the
Also check http://www.sscli.net [sscli.net] for some SSCLI/Rotor Projects.
And did you know that C# and the
(If you want a linux version of the
Re:The worst thing that could happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun doesn't NEED to Open Source anything (Score:5, Interesting)
What they are talking about? (Score:5, Interesting)
" Sun can lend credibility to Mozilla and XUL.". As much as I like Mozilla (I'm using it right now) I don't know if anyone could do that.
This is just an order of magnitud above ESR lowly comment but it still missing the target.
No relief (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft effectively broke Java by extending it to allow the implimention of native windows widgets that wouldn't run cross platform and since Sun owns Java they were able to sue, and win. I think if Java were open source MS would be free to break it again. It's an old argument and one that we have heard over and over again but it has staying power, I believe, because it is true.
Re:No relief (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, do read the fscking article before posting, just for once!
Yes, I too make my living writing (mainly) servlets [weft.co.uk]. I think this article makes a lot of sense. The whole stack of tools I use for Java is open source. Partially this is necessity: the stuff I write and sell is open source, so it can't depend on for pay components. But it also can't depend on closed source components because my customers need to know that they can still maintain it if I walk under a bus. They need to have the source.
And, frankly, in today's climate, the same applies to Sun. The computer game is too rough and too fast moving for any second-tier player, like Sun, to have any guarantees of surviving. And people aren't going to bet their businesses on a technology which might disappear from under them just because Bill Gates decided to buy Sun with the spare change for a couple of beers.
If Sun choose - as this article suggests - to dual license Java, with one license being entirely closed and proprietary and the other being the GPL, then Microsoft cannot legally poison the well. Any change they make, they have to publish the source.
If Sun GPL Java they still own Java and they can still sue if Microsoft breaks the terms of the GPL. For Sun to adopt the strategy outlined in this article would, in my mind, be a win for all of us - for you and me as software developers, for our customers' security in their business strategies, and for Sun. I really hope (but don't in the least expect) that Sun will follow this advice.
Mono?? A threat to java?? (Score:5, Insightful)
While Mono is cool project and, like many developers, one I've been following since it's inception, I don't see it ever overtaking Java, or
Laughable? (Score:5, Insightful)
How so?
The term "scripting language" doesn't have the name meaning it used to; especially where Perl and Python are concerned. They both get compiled to an intermediate form and executed...just like Java. The only difference (other than the internals of the runtime) is that the Java's development "model" is closely related to it's static typing; i.e., you manually compile your code into a binary before executing. Trying to discount Perl and Python by calling them scripting languages is silly. The real issue is what works as an enterprise development platform, not the "taxonomy" of the language. As far as platforms go, Python has got a pretty good thing in Zope/Plone etc. And both Perl and Python have libraries for damn near everything you'd want to do. J2EE may be more prevalent at the moment, but in terms of bang for buck Python and Perl present some interesting alternatives in the long term.
Re:Laughable? (Score:4, Insightful)
1984: Anyone actually working in the IT industry today knows that PC clones are hardly a competitor to genuine IBM machines.
1993: Anyone actually working in the IT industry today knows that IP is hardly a competitor to NetBIOS and IPX.
1994: Anyone actually working in the IT industry today knows that Internet Email and the Web are hardly a competitor to Lotus Notes. (or you could use Compuserve)
1998: Anyone actually working in the IT industry today knows that XML is hardly a competitor to CORBA.
Now here we are in 2004: anyone actually working in the IT industry today knows that Perl and Python are hardly competitors to Java.
I've learned over the years that it isn't worth arguing with these people. Just let the change wash over them. They'll never admit in 5 years that they were so short-sighted.
Re:Laughable? (Score:4, Informative)
"1994: Anyone actually working in the IT industry today knows that Internet Email and the Web are hardly a competitor to Lotus Notes. (or you could use Compuserve)"
They aren't competitors. Notes is a collaboration/groupware suite.
"1998: Anyone actually working in the IT industry today knows that XML is hardly a competitor to CORBA."
They aren't competitors. XML is just one of many protocols that can be used to implement CORBA. Corba is an Architecture, XML is a data transmission format.
"Now here we are in 2004: anyone actually working in the IT industry today knows that Perl and Python are hardly competitors to Java."
They aren't competitors. You don't use Java to bind apps together or to write small scripts. You don't (if you are sane) use a scripting language to write enterprise-level apps like finance or CRM software, or secure distributed systems, or high-performance numerical software. Java and scripting languages complement each other - you can embed Python in Java using Jython, or you can use Java itself as a scripting language via the Bean Shell.
What will happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What will happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Why?
I don't see that happening with C, C++, Perl, Python or any of the zillion other programming languages which have open-source implementations.
There's a spec out there, and Sun owns the trademark on "Java". Only compliant implementations can use it. If it doesn't comply, it's not java, it's a java-like language. And few will use it.
However, it is true that Sun may lose some degree of control, but only by the same way they're already losing control, by not developing it in the direction people need.
Few people want to fork stuff just for the heck of it.. but if Sun doesn't want to go in the same direction as their developers, they're going to lose control either way.
Re:What will happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Funny, because while I'm only still taking classes in C and C++, I keep running into all kinds of idiotic things.
"Oh, to finish this program, you need the Borland C++ compiler, because it uses some Borland-only calls"
"Oh, to finish this program, you need the Microsoft C++ compiler, because it uses some Microsoft-only calls"
"Oh, to finish this program, you need to port it to your favorite C compiler, because it uses standard calls that no compiler implement al
Re:What will happen (Score:5, Insightful)
FYI, I can write a Java app that requires MS DLLs as well. It's not the fault of the language.
Re:What will happen (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think he meant that it would necessarily get forked. As I understand, SUN would not be able to use any of the GPLed additions/improvements to Java in its commercial offering. In that case, even if SUN was completely in line with their developers, they would either have to give up completely on GPL-only improvements, or duplicate th
Grrrr (Score:4, Insightful)
large, distributed enterprise apps
Has J2EE replaced CORBA in those scenarios where either the client or server is NOT written in Java?
One of the facts of life in the enterprise is that it is heterogeneous in terms of platforms, operating systems and (maybe) network technologies. Neither J2EE nor
The complexity problem (Score:5, Interesting)
An Enterprise JavaBean (EJB), which is a component containing business logic, typically requires 5 to 7 supporting files to deploy.
This is the real issue that Sun needs to address. Java is widely used in enterprise apps because it is easier and faster (therefore cheaper) to develop apps. However, EJBs have some fundamental flaws that add unnecessary complexity and network overhead. I have developed apps for some of the busiest sites in the world and the requirements to strip the code down to the essentials are not compatible with EJBs. More times than not, EJBs are ditched in favor of a servlet-based front-end and a proprietary persistence solution.
Comparing apples and oranges---See DCOM and CORBA (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't mean this negatively, but if your problem is simple enough to solve with servlets then use servlets by all means. And yes, Entity Beans suck and should be avoided at all costs. And much of the time EJBs are overkill.
But if you need clusterable objects with failover and seemless transaction support nothing is easier than EJBs. Go try and do some CORBA or DCOM programming and see how complicated is can get. More power=more complexity.
Brian Ellenberger
Re:The complexity problem (Score:5, Insightful)
classes.
Haven't we heard this once before? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully (for Sun!) history won't fall into its old habit of repeating itself.
Java (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Source Java (Score:5, Insightful)
The questions Sun needs to ask itself are (1) whether or not Java is ready for that -- or is it more likely that differing implementations would lead to fragmentation, and thus nullify the whole point of Java?; and (2) if Java is ready to go open-source {and I personally believe it is}, what would be the best licence to ensure against fragmentation whilst not putting off purists?
All these things being said, Java is only a programming language -- a means to an end. Programming languages come and go. There is no reason why another contender should not arise to solve the same problems for which Java was invented, and eventually displace Java. Mono may be that, of course. It is just as likely that something totally new could arrive on the scene and change the whole picture.
Mono is a threat (Score:3, Funny)
C#, Java & GNOME (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it: Sun, one of the head developers of GNOME, is losing the fight of Java versus C#, which is the official language from GNOME (Linux)'s biggest enemy Microsoft. Where's the logic? I mean, if Java loses even *this* battle, then how are they ever going to keep any significant marketshare?
So yes, Sun should do something.
Programming Language Popularity Trends TIOBE (Score:3, Informative)
facts and not BS (Score:5, Interesting)
However, if you put your ear to the ground, you will discover that Microsoft's .NET framework is finding its way even into such organisations as a "tactical solution" for smaller, departmental level projects. It is dangerous for Sun to ignore this trend. In the early nineties, Sun's workstations were far more capable (and far pricier) than the humble PC powered by a lowly Microsoft OS called DOS. Today, Sun has lost the workstation market to an evolved PC, running an evolved Microsoft OS, in spite of its initial advantages in power and openness.
Java never had a strong presence on the client side. I know of several financial software companies that are going with a java middle/backend and .NET front end. There are several reasons for this: the first one is webservices and the second is proven scalability of java application servers. I won't name the companies, but those in the OMS (Order Management Systems) industry will know this is one trend. Just google for it and you'll see several of the top companies are moving towards J2EE for the serverside. In fact the companies winning in the financial software world is changing as a result of OpenSource software and J2EE.
Rather than see Sun simply OpenSource Java, I would rather Sun do two things. the first is make it a real standard and resubmit it to a standard body. the second is provide a BSD style license of Java. When I say Java, I mean just the JVM/JRE. I work with .NET on my day job. MS has made great strides with .NET, but scalability for large systems still sucks big time. Websites that used to use ASP + MTS will see great improvements in reliability and performance. What they won't see is a great improvement in scalability. That basically means transactional systems that were hard to maintain and difficult to develop previously on windows will be easier to build and maintain.
A professional developer, who is open minded will already know this. The real problem with using .NET is if your business needs to grow to support large scale deployments, it's a dead end. Eventually, the system will have to be replaced with a proven J2EE solution. what do I mean by large? Large might be a transactional system that is message oriented and needs to handle 300-500 transactional messages a second, or requires distributed transactions. Doing these things in .NET still very difficult, but like these types of applications were ever easy. The fact is, .NET makes easy stuff easier to build, but for hard stuff, it basically can't do it well. That's where java shines. Java is harder to learn for simple stuff, but ultimately allows you to scale to massive levels, like handling 2K transactional messages a second.
Most companies don't need that kind of power and probably never will. Microsoft is strongest in small and medium/small firms. Ignoring all the PR BS, that world has remained basically the same.
Re:facts and not BS (Score:5, Interesting)
Websites that used to use ASP + MTS will see great improvements in reliability and performance. What they won't see is a great improvement in scalability. That basically means transactional systems that were hard to maintain and difficult to develop previously on windows will be easier to build and maintain.
ASP.Net is one of the most scalable web platforms available. Which is why match.com(serving 30 million pages/day) uses ASP.Net. The whole system runs on around 40 servers, each balanced at 50% load. Microsoft's msn.com + microsoft.com get more hits than any other site in the world after yahoo. Based on the projects i ve worked on, we were able to achieve better scalability than anything I have seen in Java at a lower cost.
Large might be a transactional system that is message oriented and needs to handle 300-500 transactional messages a second, or requires distributed transactions.
You said you work with
Mod parent up! (Score:5, Interesting)
I did have to change one line in the web.config file though. I guess that 10 minutes of my time isn't a great improvement in scalability?
Why is Mono a "threat"? (Score:3, Funny)
Thin clients (Score:4, Interesting)
One interesting thing the article brings up is XUL. Since it seems to do so well provided a pretty platform is written to run it, maybe it would be a good idea to, as they suggest, get it standardised at the W3C.
Actually in general, I feel it would be a good idea for Sun to start pushing towards an architecture which allows for server-side (in the X sense, where the server is the terminal) widgets, whether they use something like SWT (which will never happen due to wars with IBM) or even an improved AWT.
Server-side widgets would make the client even thinner, and if it were all in script you could just use the same code on all platforms and the rendering mechanism would determine how it looks. Maybe if Y-Windows ever takes off you could even have an implementation for that, and things would be lightning fast. :-)
IRTFA (Score:4, Interesting)
After the 5th paragraph I stopped reading. After the 5th paragraph the new headline "Rephrasing Eric Raymond" I stopped reading.
Sorry folks
If I count commercial, non open source, Java implementations I count
If I count open source java implementatinos I count
Why
Man, this Open Source
Why should PERL be a competition to C++? This "are programming languages"!!!!! Sure,
Do you think any german customer, using Java takes a shit if it is Open Source? I would bet that 90% of the german projects done in Java, just download the JDK and code it, and thats it. No SUN, no IBM, no Open Source, no idiology involved.
Why the heck should anyone care if it is Open Source or closed? Especially if tehre are 5 times the Open Source implementations existing than closed ones? Especialy if none of the open ones are used in commercial projects?
Do you really think "Deutsche Bank" would "take" an Open Source java implementation for their next Enterprise Portal?
No, they take the CPL SUN implementation, or the semi open AIBM implementation, or the Apple colsed source implementation or the HP closed source implementation or the BEA JRocket, closed source JVM or any other closed source JVM.
SUN has absolutely no benfit in a contract with Deutsche Bank about a offering an Open Source Java
Using any JDK and Deploying any JDK based application is FREE as in BEER regadless which JDK you use, SUNs, IBMs, HPs, Apples.
The real world does not care if it is free as in SPEECH as long as they dont have to PAY FOR IT.
angel'o'sphere
What a dumb article (Score:5, Insightful)
J2EE is small and easy, not large and expensive. Anyone can build JSP pages or use Servlets on a free but high-quality App server like Tomcat - this may not involve Enterprise Java Beans (the least used aspect of J2EE), but its still J2EE and it costs nothing.
How can
Why does Java need to be Open Source to ride the Linux revolution? High-quality Java VMs are ready for Linux.
Java is the most widely requested language for development, and its use is still rapidly expanding. Sun has nothing to fear.
Open sourcing Java give MS free reign (Score:4, Interesting)
If Java is Open Source. MS can change it all they want from the Sun standard. The only stipulation is that they then must release their source code. MS would love this as it puts them in a far better position than they're in now, where they're not allowed to ship non-compliant versions of Java as ordered by the courts.
IBM urges Sun to make Java open source (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM on Wednesday sent an open letter to Sun Microsystems urging Sun to make Java technology open source, CNET News.com has learned.
In a letter sent by Rod Smith, IBM's vice president of emerging technology, IBM offered to work with Sun to create a project that would shepherd development of Java through an open-source development model. If implemented, portions of Sun's most valuable software asset--Java--would be freely available, and contributors ranging from volunteer programmers to large corporations would submit changes to the Java software.
[com.com]
http://news.com.com/2100-1007_3-5165427.html
Opensource is not the all answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Well remember JVM and how Microsoft corrupted the compatiablity? Java's goal is to be cross platform and to do so means there needs to be a centralized development effort. If suddenly there are 50 versions of J2EE on the market, each with its unquie traits, which do I run? How do I know that the app I program will work on the others? If it doesn't run on everything, hasn't the point of Java been defeated?
I once worked for a company that was looking to port some of its Solaris & AIX Applications to Linux, but 3 months into the project, the question became what distros to support. They tried porting their application with some modifications. Got it to run fine on RedHat 5.x (it was a while ago), but then it took some playing around to work with SuSE and we never did get it to compile on Slackware. When they said they planned to support RedHat default only, meaning if system admins were using a tweaked box or kernal, we would not offer support. Needless to say, potential clients scoffed at the idea and after 6 months they decided that the Linux Market wasn't worth the hassle until some standards had emerged. This is why a lot of developers won't port to linux, especially desktop applications: too many variations.
I see the same potential of Java, to become slpit into so many forks, that it defeats the purpose in the first place.
I like opensource applications, but I don't think that Opensource is always the answer. Another good example is a good friend that is developing a support ticket application for the company he works for. I asked him, "Isn't there several GPL'd apps outhere that could installed within a couple hours?" He responded of course, but he put it this way: "I like to use my own code and not other peoples. Its a lot less messy that way." and I see his point.
IF it wasn't for opensource, I would have never learned how to program in PHP, PERL, and various SQL databases, it was a great learning tool, but like every tool, there is the correct tool for the job. I say this as I switched from Linux to Macintosh almost two years ago now and I am willing to pay for the luxury of having everything work. Just like we now pay for managed instead of self-managed servers for our business. There is only 3 of us and we now have enough business that its costing us more to run our own servers than to pay a little extra for managed services where the keep up with the updates and such.
All I am saying is that projects have goals. Sometimes Opensource meets those goals, but its not a cure all. The beauty is that we have the choice of using Opensource or to use a propritary solution.
What a load of pap.... (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a wellspring of innovation in Open Source that beats the productivity of Microsoft's friendly tools.
It mentions the JCP [jcp.org] but ignores the power of that organisation over the OSS world. Open Source certainly does NOT provide the leadership in the Application Server space, BEA, IBM and SAP do. Open Source does not provide leadership in the IDE space, BEA, Borland, Compuware and IBM do. Open Source does not provide leadership in the J2ME space, Sun, Nokia and Ericsson do.
What annoys me about this article is its assumption that XDoclet and Ant can be compared with a J2EE application server. And that _standards_ are not important. The JCP is the key to all of this. In the same way as Ethernet won because it was a standard the JCP lays down standards for the Java space. ANYONE can take part, it doesn't even cost you money. And you can have a say in the direction of the platform, in a much more direct way that you could have with Linux for instance.
The point this misses is that Java has not succeeded as well as it has by being fragmented, it has succeeded because it is standardised. The JCP enables all of the partners to determine what goes into the platform. Sun propose JSRs, but so do IBM and BEA... and Oracle.... and SAP... etc etc etc.
Open Source could learn much by looking at the JCP.
Consider Wi-Fi, why is 802.11x successful ? Because its all open source ? Or because a regulated standard works well in a commodity marketplace.
Sun with have commoditised the Application Server and Mobile platform spaces. The JCP has for several years been the key to that success.
The trouble with Open Source advocates is sometimes they see everything as a nail.
Re:Java, who needs it? (Score:5, Interesting)
This article is talking about J2EE (server side) applications. Which often benchmark faster than natively implemented code.
P.S.> Java desktop applications are fairly speedy if you use UI libraries such as SWT - which work directly on GTK for example.
Re:Java, who needs it? (Score:5, Insightful)
>
>You do realize that this is impossible, right?
What makes you say that? In fact, the original poster is quite correct. The JVM *can* generate faster code. You know how? By doing runtime optimizations. Compilers have to optimize for what *might* be the best performance profile at runtime. Also, they can only compile for the lowest common processor. (e.g. A pentium II) The Hotspot Java VM can optimize based on how the code is currently being used, undo an optimization if it starts slowing things down, and use processor specific instructions! Natively compiled code just can't beat that.
Re:Java, who needs it? (Score:3, Insightful)
> Also, they can only compile for the lowest common processor. (e.g. A pentium II)
That may be true for traditional proprietary software, but NOT for F [fsf.org]/OS [opensource.org] Software. Witness Gentoo [gentoo.org]; I compile everything for my computer's specific processor. And surely you don't believe that the Hotspot Java VM does its optimizations 'for free'! Every runtime optimization check introduces a performance hit.
Re:Java, who needs it? (Score:5, Informative)
Ok. My assembly is a little rusty, so bear with me. Let's say we have equivalent Java and C programs. They both have to run on a 386 or higher. (Bear with me. I haven't kept up with the MMX/SSE/SSE2 instructions, so I'll have to fake this a little.) Now, your C compiler will see that you want to store a 32 bit value, but has to generate code for a 386. So, it generates the code:
pop AX
STOSW 0x0005
pop AX
STOSW 0x0005
Even though the code may be running on a Pentium Pro (which is optmized for 32 bit code), it's still going to execute those 4 statements.
Now, the Java Hotspot compiler will start and notice the fact that you're running on a Pentium Pro. So when it converts the bytecode to machine code, it creates the following instructions:
pop EAX
STOD 0x0005
That's twice as fast as the C code!
Real code would tend to be running on modern processors, so this example is a little contrived. However, the JVM can (and will) use SSE instructions to do multiple calculations in one instruction, while the C code will be forced to generate non-SSE instructions to support the old Pentium Is out there.
Hotspot is also capable of analyzing the running code and regenerating even better assembly that would perform poorly in other circumstances. For example, let's say Hotspot notices that the bounds can't be exceeded on an array. Well, Hotspot will then recompile to remove the bounds checking.
Does that explain it better?
Re:Java, who needs it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it won't! That's the point. The Hotspot compiler will generate the second piece of code because it notices you're using a Pentium Pro. If the JVM was running on a 386, it would generate the first bit of code, just like the C compiler.
Also, GNU GCC compiles code for processors like i686 that still executes on i386 by not using the i686-only instructions.
As much as I wish they did, not all OSes use ELF binaries. Besides, generating binaries for multiple processors creates a great deal of bloat in the binaries. Not to mention that the JVM will be able to optimize for future processers (when they come out) while the GCC binaries will only be optimized through the current processor.
Re:Java, who needs it? (Score:3, Interesting)
You'll need OpenOffice or (ewww) MSOffice to read it. Alternatively, there's a Google cache [216.239.41.104], but it isn't very interesting without the images.
Re:Java, who needs it? (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong on many counts. First off, Hotspot is a native compiler. It just compiles at runtime. Secondly, a good compiler can outperform a human optimizer because it can juggle such concepts as superscaler packets, out of order exec
Re:Java, who needs it? (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that this is impossible, right?
No, this is not impossible. Read up on just-in-time (JIT) compliers and you'll see why. In a nutshell, the Java Virtual Machine profiles the code that is being executed, then uses sophisticated algorythms to anylize this information, then compile (while the system is running) native code from the java byte code, that is optimized for the environment, and more importantly for the ways in which the code is being invoked. Subsequent calls are executed by this newly compiled native code.
Thus the JIT compiler is able to (often) do a better job at creating optimized native code than a C++ compiler can do, because the C++ compiler doesn't have run-time analysis to use in its decisions of how to optimize the code. The JVM can continuously re-optimize the same code over and over during the life of the application. JVMs of today (and the last few years) do this as standard practice.
Re:Java, who needs it?/Bytecode vs. native code (Score:5, Insightful)
Java".
The front-end languages C++ or java don't really do much about the perfomance (except that you can manually optimize things you can't do in java because of missing pointers etc.) (*)
IMHO, java bytecode suffers from the following things (and so do the users of java programs) - [they are the reasons,I think, why all java programs I've seen so far (and all the not-for-java-crafted benchmarks) are running considerably slower than C/C++]:
Technical:
- Java bytecode is low level enough to lose certain optimizations (JITs have to apply decompilation techniques) which you can do in C/C++. You can of course compile Java natively (e.g. with gcj), yes. But then, you lose portability.
- Java bytecode is not low-level enough that you can take advantage of the features of the particular hardware. Java's ints are 32 bit. What if you run your numerical java code on 64 bit machines?
Political:
- The java bytecode format is so specific that it is impossible or rather hard (there was once a java backend for egcs, admitted) to get other languages like C/C++ to run on it. Why does one have to chose the platform java with the language java? I don't know
I'd like to have a VM for C++ *and* Java. That would surely rock and end some of the flamewars.
(*)- The often stated security argument (java has no pointers and is therefore inherently more secure than C++) would fall with C++ on a VM.
Re:Java, who needs it? (Score:3, Interesting)
You read that right, they went from PA-RISC to PA-RISC. Picked up a big boost in speed. It claims on some benchmarks it taking code compiled with -O, had performance like -O4 was used while compiling (they dont' cite a specific percenta
Re:Java, who needs it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Qt and GTK are not even languages, what the hell are you talking about? You are comparing an enterprise level language with a GUI library! Java is not Swing!
Re:Java, who needs it? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just elaborating on what Qt is. It's closer to Java in nature than you might think, and with the upcoming Qt4 I can imagine it becoming quite a competitor.
Re:Java, who needs it? (Score:5, Funny)
I'll be impressed if they can make it run without a computer.
Re:Java, who needs it? (Score:3, Informative)
You can also compile Java applications to native code using GCJ, assuming that you're not using anything beyond JRE 1.0 (or something like that).
Re:Java, who needs it? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Java is ok (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah. Java is cool for run of the mill OO projects where everyone else is using Java too, because everyone else is using Java.
If you want to look at something interesting check out Apple's Squeak, an implimentation of Smalltalk-80 where even the VM is written in open source Smalltalk.
Squeak [squeak.org]
KFG
Re:Java is ok (Score:5, Insightful)
As a professional Java developer who works primarily in Eclipse, Java is not your problem here.
Are you using a legacy app based around AWT? Then your GUI will most likely be annoyingly limited (with a couple of exceptions on MacOS X).
Are you using a GUI app using the Swing toolkit? Okay, yes, that's going to be slow -- I'll give you that. But that's similar to saying "Linux is ugly! Just look at (GTK|Qt|Tk|whatever)!"
Seriously, I'm tired of reading this drech on Slashdot. A properly-implemented Swing is reasonably fast (see MacOS X for an example), but unfortunately the Windows implementation isn't one. Before slamming the language, however, try changing toolkits -- I recommend SWT, as used in Eclipse.
Avoid SWT on OS X (Score:3, Informative)
What were they thinking implementing SWT in Carbon. Even that is not an excuse for the slowness though. About the only full blown java IDE that is slower than Eclipse on OSX is Netbeans :(
Re:Java is ok (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone was talking about how Java is slow, and how it looks ugly, and we should do our app in VB.
My boss let me write it in Java anyways (with comments that if it did NOT perform well and look good, we might have to redo it in something else).
I passed it off to the guy doing the C++ remote server, and he was completely impressed with the looks and speed (yes, it was even Swing on Windows). I came into work the next morning to everyone congratulating me on a great UI, because evidentally it was shown off to everyone at the Pub the previous night.
The point is, there are a few problems of bad performance/look in Java UI... These are:
1) User is using an old version of Java, usually one that is end-of-lifed.
2) The coder wrote it in AWT
3) The coder wrote it in Swing, but without reading ANY of the documentation on Swing+Threads
4) The UI was patched & patched over and over, without designing it correctly first
5) The coder didn't utilize any look-n-feels
6) Bad threading design (ie: synchronizing when there is no need to, etc)
Is there anything that could be done better? Of course, otherwise there would be no one coding with the JCP. But, can you HONESTLY say any other language is completely perfect as-is?
I don't agree with your point about Eclipse/SWT though. I have a serious problem with needing to install any 3rd-party platform-specific java libraries... just goes against the whole concept of pure-Java, but then again, I am a purist. I also don't like the overall look of the SWT apps (some of the things like the disappearing Xs on the tabs annoy the hell out of me), and don't like the complexity that Eclipse adds to simple projects. I remember feeling the same way about JBuilder years ago, but to a lesser degree. Today, I write all my Java code in JCreator (or pico if I am logged into my BSD box), and use ANT to build with.
I am also tired of all the "Java-should-be-Open-Source" by people who have never bothered to spend 10 minutes looking into the JCP and how Java IS currently Open Source and how Java is NOT run exclusively by Sun anymore. Every couple days/weeks, I log onto Slashdot and someone else is making these presumptious claims without looking into the facts.
Just my 2 cents
Re:Java is ok (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all, I'd dispute that Flash has "taken over for most web apps and games". Much is done using Flash, but Flash script is scarcely an industrial strength general-purpose development language. Many of the major web-apps and games are in Java, see "Yahoo Games" and many others. Many "web-apps" are server-side, in which Java thoroughly dominates.
Whatever advantages Flash has are simply largely related to being endorsed by Mr. Monopoly - Microsoft. Web developers, being able to count on Flash being there bundled with IEEEEEEE (pronounced Aieeeeeee!;) simply went with that rather than risk user disgust with a JRE download and slow Java startup times (due to no pre-load with the browser)s.
Sad, but true.
Sun's recent bundling deals with major PC OEMs, as well as more general broadband availability may help, but Java now has an uphill climb as far as applets go. Fortunately, full-blown Java apps (including those using Java Web Start) are more interesting anyhow... :-)
jFlash [sesma.com] is interesting as well...
Re:Java is ok (Score:3, Insightful)
My god, what sort of equipment are you running Java on, an abacus?
No, Java probably will not be used in the next uber-doom type progam, but for everyday usage type programs on fairly recent computers (built within the last couple of years) it's perfectly fine.
I'm getting the impression that there are a lot of really POOR programmers out who have no idea how to make a program run fast and use C or C++ as a crutch.
I also get the feeling that there are a lot of people out there
What about IBM Clones? That was successful... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about IBM Clones? That was successful... (Score:5, Insightful)
The IBM PC was a hit from the start. Apple never had "all the market share" outside of the home computer market.
Nor did IBM ever license their PC architecture. The PC was built mostly on off-the-shelf hardware. Clone manufacturers just reverse-engineered the BIOS.
Later, IBM tried to regain a proprietary hold over the PC market by putting a bunch of non-standard stuff in the PS/2, like the Microchannel architecture, which never took off because none of the clone manufacturers bought into it.
There can be no doubt that IBM wanted the total market control.. indeed, they've been playing that game for over 30 years in the Mainframe market.
Re:How does GPL dual licensing work again? (Score:4, Informative)
You can use and distribute MySQL under the GPL as long as you comply with the letter (and spirit
Re:I don't care anymore (Score:3, Informative)
Not true at all.
Go read [sun.com] Sun's license for use of their Java API docs..